In his commentary on the book of Micah, Bob Becking wrote the following concerning “Bethlehem” (Micah 5:1):
It has been suggested that the
topographical name Bethlehem already occurs in the Amarna correspondence
(fourteenth century BCE). Cazelles (ABD 1, 712) suggested that Bit-NIN.URTA,
“house of Ninurta,” in EA 290:16 could be read at Bit-Laḫama. The
topographical name refers to “a town belonging to Jerusalem” (EA 290:14-16),
but the identification is uncertain. Koch has suggested that the toponym be
read as Bit-Ba’al and understands it as referring to Baalah/Kiriath-Jearim and
hence, not to Bethlehem. In 2012, a bulla was uncovered in Jerusalem with the
following probable reading: “In the seventh [(year) / Be’]thlehem / [to the
kin]g” (Reich 2012; see De Moor 2020, 247). It is difficult to draw any
conclusion on the basis of this Iron Age bulla. The reading “Bethlehem” for [. .
.]ytlḥm is far from certain. In addition, the inscription does not have
the literary structure of a fiscal bulla (contra Reich 2012). The conclusion that
the city of Bethlehem had to pay some kind of tax to the court in Jerusalem in
the eighty to seventh centuries BCE goes beyond the evidence (contra Reich
2012; De Moor 2020, 247). (Bob Becking, Micah: A New Translation with
Introduction and Commentary [AYB 24I; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2023], 184, emphasis in bold added)
Note
that, while Becking does not believe that believe Bethlehem is in view in the
EA 290 from Amarna, he does believe that the place is “a town belonging to
Jerusalem,” and identifies Bit-NIN.URTA refers to Kiriath-Jearim. This
town is not 5km away from Jerusalem, as is Bethlehem, but 18km away(!) If Becking
is correct, it shows that “belonging to Jerusalem” (cf. “land of Jerusalem” in
the Book of Mormon) covers a wide geographical net, which would include
Bethlehem (cf. Alma 7:10). While it may weaken the LDS apologetic appeal to the
Amarna correspondence for evidence/proof of Bethlehem being part of the “land
of Jerusalem,” it shows, by deduction, Bethlehem would be part thereof, and
also, that “Jerusalem” encompassed more than the city with that name (on this,
see John A. Tvedtnes, Cities
and Lands in the Book of Mormon).
